The Schreiber Times Middle States Report Should be Open to ... · 31.03.1989 · Todd Hazelkom,...
1
The Schreiber Times Volume XXIX Issue 7 Paul D. Schreiber High School Port Washington, New York 11050 Dr. Sidney Barish, Principal Robert Albert, Adviser March 31,1989 Judi Rimerman EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Oren Blam Jay Berman MANAGING EDITORS EDITORS: NEWS ElissaBlum INSIDE SCHREIBER Pete Fomatale OPINIONS Daniel Saul ENTERTAINMENT DanMulvihiU SPORTS Noah Krieger PHOTOGRAPHY Dan Fisher COPY Jeremy Weintraub TECHNICAL Dave Pfister LAYOUT Jung Lee Arash Salemi ASSISTANT NEWS Robert Weisz EDITORIAL ASST. Lauren Gelman ASSISTANT SPORTS Dan Juceam James Weiner ADVERTISING/DESIGN Laura Yurdin REPORTERS: Brian Armatrong, Hal Bienstock- Matt Blankman, Steven Engel, Craig Glantz, Jordanna Glantz, Todd Hazelkom, Roy Hoffman, Craig Johnson, David Kaminow, Jason Levy, Carrie Markowski, Alan Meyers, Stefanie Mollin, Heather Osterman, Jill Otruba, Jodi Perelman, Rob Pittman, Rafi Reza, Amanda Sacher, Dan Shodell, Brian Stein, Justine Suh, SethYablans PHOTOGRAPHERS: Heniy Chen, Matt Blankman PoUiahedbythestadentbodyafPaiil D. Schreiber High School. Letter* to the editor should be addreoed to Tke Sehreibar Tima, Schreiber High School, 101 Campne Drive, Port Waahing- ton, NY 11060. The edittn reurve the right to rcAiM print or retom any (ubmit- ted material. EDITORIALS Middle States Report Should be Open to All ? In the end of February, Schreiber was presented with the Middle States Evaluation report. The report, which cri- tiqued each school department based upon a year-long self- evaluation conducted by teach- ers, students, and parents, and upon a visit by an evaluating committee, provides basic rec- ommendations for improvement and general commendations. The school then responds to the critique in the form of written plans for dealing with the sug- gestions. Based upon these general facts, one would conclude that the evaluative procedure en- courages open interaction be- tween students, teachers, and administrators. Despite this fact, however, the report is being kept under virtual lock and key. Dissemination of information has been handled strictly by Principal Sidney Barish and department chairpeople; these are the only individuals at Schreiber who have full access to the report. Teachers may only obtain the evaluation through the various resource centers, and even in these cases they may peruse only the por- tion of the report pertaining to their particular field. The stu- dents have even less access; they will be able to view the report "some time in the future," and it is then likely to be in paired-down form. Why the big secret? The evaluation involves the entire schod, faculty and students alike. As such, everyone has a stake in it. We all participated in the construction of the self- evaluation, just as we were all involved in the visit by the Middle States board. Continu- ing along these lines, we should also participate in the reading of the report. Moreover, one must also lode at the stated purpose of the evaluation. It has been ex- pressed time and time again that the purpose of the report is not tojudge Schreiber as good or bad, but to see if it is achieving the goals it set for itself. This idea is clearly not conducive to the administration's present policies of limited access. Clearly, the reasons for lim- iting access to the report are valid. By sheer logic, i t seems rather unfair to have critical in- formation concerning the vari- ous members of the Schreiber community available to every- one. Likewise, it is possible for statements to be taken out of context. Yet though the dan- gers inherent in disseminating information about individual school departments are clear, isn't it more dangerous to limit student and teacher access to this information? We must trust that students and teachers will take the report as was in- tended. And, if the entire report is available to students and teachers, how likely is it that statements will be taken out of context? We all have a right t o see the report in its initial form and to draw our own conclusions. It is time for the administra- tion to give the students and teachers of Schreiber the credit they deserve; they are mature, responsible individuals and should be treated as such. Keep- ing the report available only to a select few is a form of censorship that doesn't quite fit the admini- stration at Schreiber. We are perhaps one of the most liberal of schools on Long Island with re- gard to fireedom of expression. This is no time for the policies to change. Accredidation is some- thing that will benefit all of us; don't we have some say in the process towards this goal? Rushdie Controversy Offers Model for High School Battles Against Censorship Several months ago, the world was faced with the 1980'8 version rfthe shot heard round the world': the Ayatollah Khomeini's death sentence for a British author who dared to in- sult the institution of Islam. World reaction was varied; while bookstores in our own backyard refused to furnish their shelves with the writer's work due to concern for 'the safety of employees," the mem- bers of the European Economic Community withdrew ambas- sadors firom Iran, authors united to demonstrate against the tyranny of the Ayatollah's words, and Britain refused to reveal the location of the hid- den author. Though the controversy over Satanic Verses has died down, the implications involved are still ripe i n t h e minds of most Americans. A clear blow has been struck in the body of re- pression; once again we have shown that words cannot be caged, that one should not die for speaking what, for him, is the truth. Yet if this is an idea significant to the average citi- zen, then it is doubly so to high school students. By virtue of our age, we are perhaps the most vulnerable of citizens to censor- ship in its various forms; as such, we must also be the most highly attuned to infiringements upon our fireedom of expression. One such case in point is last year's infamous "Hazelwood decision," a verdict by the Supreme Court which granted school authori- ties the right to determine the content of school publications. To consider the decision a "done deal" would be a grave error. On the contrary, whereas most of Mr. Rushdie's fear can now be dissipated, we as a generation are still faced with a constant struggle towards free expres- sion. And while we at Schreiber are fortunate enough to live in a community supportive of Iree thought and publication, many of our neighbors on Long Island. from Lynbrook to Roslyn, are not quite so lucky. These neigh- bors need the type of support Rushdie received; these neigh- bors need the action of their peers, through free press organi- zations and letters to our con- gressmen, to fi-ee them firom censorship. The ultimate message to be reaped from the Rushdie contro- versy is not that we are trapped in a sea of repression; rather, it is that we must take the quick ac- tion of the European and Ameri- can communities upon the Ayatollah's death sentence as a model for our own activity. And just as our "elders" would not allow one portion of the popula- tion to dictate to them what may be written or said, nor can we allow such behavior to go on in our own county. The time has come for us, the generation that will inherit today's and tomor- row's headlines, to take a stand and to act upon censorship in our own neighborhood. Times Supports Joel Steinberg Sentencing When justice is carried out, our faith in our judicial system is often renewed. On Thursday, March 23, Judge Harold Roth- wax sentenced Joel Steinberg, a man convicted on a manslaugh- ter charge for killing his six year old daughter, to eight and a half to twenty-five years in a maxi- mum security state peniten- tiary. The judge additionally recommended that parole be de- nied so that Steinberg would have to serve his fiill time. This sentencing, the maximum one allowable for manslaughter in New York State, came after a long and tedious trial in which Steinberg was shown to be a dominating, callous, and brutal monster. The sentence was im- doubtedly a just one. The trial took a discerning look into the lives cf Steinberg, his common law wife, Hedda Nussbaum, and their illegally adopted daughter, Lisa. It was shown repeatedly that Joel de- manded complete submission and servitude fix)m Hedda and Lisa. He was said to have beaten both Hedda and Lisa, and this abuse was evident firom the post- mortum pictures of Lisa's corpse and the grotesque footage of Hedda's battered body. Though Steinberg asserted that he did not abuse Lisa and that her death was not his fault, evidence pointing to the contrary was overwhelming. Hedda's own testimony was most damaging to Steinberg's case; she re- counted nimierous examples of Steinberg's domineering and egotistical personality in addi- tion to describing the events leading up to Lisa's death. Joel Steinberg never threw himself at the mercy of the court; he never admitted that he was criminally negligent, and he never showed remorse for his own actions. Though he did claim at the end of the trial and before the sentencing that he would have to live with the loss of Lisa's life and that he was extremely sad, this last minute attempt at pity was more af- fected than real. As Rothwax stated, Joel still did not accept responsibility for Lisa's death. Joel's sentence was an appro- priate one; he deserved the maximum sentence. Many ar- gue that he should have been convicted and sentenced for sec- ond degree murder, a crime car- rying a harsher maximum sen- tence than manslaughter. But the jury decided not to do so, and Judge Rothwax chose the harsh- est sentence for Steinberg. If Steinberg serves his sentence with good behavior, as much as one quarter of his maximum sentence can be taken ofT, and he would stay in jail for no longer than 17 years. Yet no matter what happens in the future, the sentencing was definitely de- served, and Steinberg was brought to justice. Write to the Schreiber Times We need yotir input on the articles we print, the editorials we pres- ent, and general school issues. Submit letters in the Pub Room and let yoxirself be heard. M W M s M M i CO
Transcript of The Schreiber Times Middle States Report Should be Open to ... · 31.03.1989 · Todd Hazelkom,...
The Schreiber Times
Volume X X I X Issue 7 Paul D . Schreiber H i g h School
Port Washington, N e w York 11050
D r . Sidney Bar i sh , Pr inc ipa l Robert Albert , Adviser
March 31,1989
J u d i Rimerman EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Oren Blam Jay Berman
MANAGING EDITORS
EDITORS:
NEWS E l i s s a B l u m
INSIDE SCHREIBER Pete Fomatale
OPINIONS Daniel Saul
ENTERTAINMENT DanMulvihiU
SPORTS Noah Krieger
PHOTOGRAPHY Dan Fisher
COPY Jeremy Weintraub
TECHNICAL Dave Pfister
LAYOUT J u n g Lee
Arash Salemi
ASSISTANT NEWS Robert Weisz
EDITORIAL ASST. Lauren Gelman
ASSISTANT SPORTS Dan Juceam
James Weiner
ADVERTISING/DESIGN L a u r a Yurdin
REPORTERS: Brian Armatrong, Hal Bienstock-
Matt Blankman, Steven Engel, Craig Glantz, Jordanna Glantz, Todd Hazelkom, Roy Hoffman, Craig Johnson, David Kaminow, Jason Levy, Carrie Markowski, Alan Meyers, Stefanie Mol l in , Heather Osterman, J i l l Otruba, Jodi Perelman, Rob Pittman, Rafi Reza, Amanda Sacher, Dan Shodell, Brian Stein, Justine Suh, SethYablans
PHOTOGRAPHERS: Heniy Chen, Matt Blankman
PoUiahedbythestadentbodyafPaiil D. Schreiber High School. Letter* to the editor should be addreoed to T k e Sehreibar T i m a , Schreiber High School, 101 Campne Drive, Port Waahing-ton, NY 11060. The e d i t t n reurve the right to rcAiM print or retom any (ubmit-ted material.
E D I T O R I A L S
Middle States Report Should be Open to All ? I n the end o f February ,
Schreiber was presented w i t h the Middle States Evaluat ion report. The report , which c r i t iqued each school department based upon a year- long self-evaluation conducted by teachers, students, and parents, and upon a v is i t by an evaluat ing committee, provides basic recommendations for improvement and general commendations. The school then responds to the crit ique i n the form of w r i t t e n plans for dealing w i t h the suggestions.
Based upon these general facts, one would conclude t h a t the evaluative procedure encourages open interact ion between students, teachers, and administrators . Despite th is fact, however, the report is being kept under v i r t u a l lock and key. Dissemination of in fo rmat ion has been handled s t r i c t ly by Principal Sidney Bar i sh and
department chairpeople; these are the only ind iv iduals a t Schreiber who have f u l l access to the report . Teachers may only ob ta in the e v a l u a t i o n through the various resource centers, and even i n these cases they may peruse only the port ion of the report perta in ing to the i r part i cular field. The s t u dents have even less access; they w i l l be able to view the report "some t ime i n the fu ture , " and i t is then l ike ly to be i n paired-down f o rm.
Why the b ig secret? The evaluation involves the entire schod, faculty and students al ike. As such, everyone has a stake i n i t . We a l l part ic ipated i n the construction of the self-evaluation, j u s t as we were a l l involved i n the v i s i t by the Middle States board. Cont inu i n g along these l ines, we should also participate i n the reading of the report.
Moreover, one must also lode a t the stated purpose o f the evaluation. I t has been expressed t ime and t ime again t h a t the purpose of the report is not to judge Schreiber as good or bad, b u t to see i f i t i s achieving the goals i t set for itself . This idea is clearly not conducive to the administrat ion ' s present policies of l i m i t e d access.
Clearly, the reasons for l i m i t i n g access to the report are v a l i d . By sheer logic, i t seems r a t h e r u n f a i r to have cr i t i ca l i n formation concerning the v a r i ous members of the Schreiber community available to everyone. Likewise, i t i s possible for statements to be taken out of context. Yet though the dangers inherent i n disseminating in format ion about ind iv idua l school departments are clear, i sn ' t i t more dangerous to l i m i t student and teacher access to th i s information? We m u s t
t r u s t t h a t students and teachers w i l l take the report as was i n tended. A n d , i f the entire report is available to students and teachers, how l i k e l y is i t t h a t statements w i l l be taken out of context? We a l l have a right to see the report i n i t s i n i t i a l f o rm and to draw our own conclusions.
I t i s t ime for the admin i s t ra t ion to give the students and teachers of Schreiber the credit they deserve; they are mature , respons ib le i n d i v i d u a l s a n d should be treated as such. Keepi n g the report available only to a select few is a f orm of censorship that doesn't quite fit the a d m i n i strat ion a t Schreiber. We are perhaps one of the most l iberal of schools on Long Is land w i t h re gard to fireedom of expression. This is no t ime for the policies to change. Accredidation is somet h i n g t h a t w i l l benefit a l l of us; don't we have some say i n the process towards th i s goal?
Rushdie Controversy Offers Model for High School Battles Against Censorship
Several months ago, the wor ld was faced w i t h the 1980'8 version rfthe shot heard r ound the w o r l d ' : t h e A y a t o l l a h Khomeini 's death sentence for a B r i t i s h author who dared to i n sult the i n s t i t u t i o n of Is lam. Wor ld reaction was var ied ; whi le bookstores i n our own backyard refused to furn ish their shelves w i t h the writer 's work due to concern for ' t h e safety o f employees," the members of the European Economic Communi ty w i thdrew ambassadors firom I r a n , authors un i ted to demonstrate against the t y r a n n y of the Ayatollah's words, and B r i t a i n refused to reveal the location of the h i d den author .
Though t h e controversy
over S a t a n i c V e r s e s has died down, the implications involved are s t i l l ripe i n the minds of most Americans. A clear blow has been struck i n the body of r e pression; once again we have shown t h a t words cannot be caged, t h a t one should not die for speaking what , for h i m , is the t r u t h . Yet i f th i s is an idea significant to the average c i t i zen, then i t is doubly so to h igh school students. By v i r tue of our age, we are perhaps the most vulnerable of citizens to censorship i n i t s various forms; as such, we m u s t also be the most h igh ly a t tuned to infiringements upon our fireedom of expression. One such case i n point is last year's infamous "Hazelwood decision," a verdict by the Supreme Court
wh i ch granted school a u t h o r i ties the right to determine the content of school publications. To consider the decision a "done deal" would be a grave error . On the contrary, whereas most of M r . Rushdie's fear can now be dissipated, we as a generation are s t i l l faced w i t h a constant struggle towards free expression. A n d whi le we at Schreiber are fortunate enough to l ive i n a community supportive of Iree thought and publ icat ion, many of our neighbors on Long Is land . from Lynbrook to Roslyn, are not quite so lucky . These neighbors need the type of support Rushdie received; these neighbors need the action of t h e i r peers, through free press organi zations a n d letters to our con
gressmen, to fi-ee t h e m firom censorship.
The u l t imate message to be reaped from the Rushdie controversy is not t h a t we are trapped i n a sea of repression; rather , i t is
that we must take the quick act ion o f the European and A m e r i can c o m m u n i t i e s upon t h e Ayatollah's death sentence as a model for our own act iv i ty . A n d j u s t as our "elders" would not al low one port ion of the populat ion to dictate to them what may be w r i t t e n or said, nor can we allow such behavior to go on i n our own county. The t ime has come for us, the generation t h a t w i l l i n h e r i t today's and tomorrow's headlines, to take a stand and to act upon censorship i n our own neighborhood.
Times Supports Joel Steinberg Sentencing When just ice is carried out,
our f a i t h i n our jud i c ia l system is often renewed. O n Thursday, M a r c h 23, Judge Haro ld Roth-wax sentenced Joel Steinberg, a m a n convicted on a manslaughter charge for k i l l i n g his six year old daughter, to eight and a h a l f to twenty- f ive years i n a max i m u m security state penitent i a r y . The judge addit ional ly recommended t h a t parole be denied so t h a t Steinberg would have to serve his fiill t ime. This sentencing, the m a x i m u m one allowable for manslaughter i n New York State, came after a long and tedious t r i a l i n which Steinberg was shown to be a dominat ing , callous, and b r u t a l monster. The sentence was i m -doubtedly a j u s t one.
The t r i a l took a discerning look i n t o the lives cf Steinberg, h is common l a w wife, Hedda Nussbaum, a n d the i r i l legal ly
adopted daughter, L isa . I t was shown repeatedly t h a t Joel demanded complete submission and servitude fix)m Hedda and Lisa. He was said to have beaten both Hedda and Lisa , and th i s abuse was evident firom the post-m o r t u m pictures of Lisa's corpse and the grotesque footage of Hedda's battered body. Though Steinberg asserted t h a t he d id not abuse Lisa and t h a t her death was not his f a u l t , evidence po int ing to the contrary was overwhelming. Hedda's own testimony was most damaging to Steinberg's case; she re counted nimierous examples of Steinberg's domineering and egotistical personality i n addi t ion to describing the events leading up to Lisa's death.
Joel Steinberg never threw himse l f a t the mercy of the court; he never admi t ted t h a t he was c r imina l ly negligent, and he
never showed remorse for his own actions. Though he d i d c laim a t the end of the t r i a l and before the sentencing t h a t he would have to l ive w i t h the loss of Lisa's l i fe and t h a t he was extremely sad, th i s last m i n u t e a t tempt at p i t y was more affected t h a n rea l . As Rothwax stated, Joel s t i l l d id not accept responsibi l i ty for Lisa's death.
Joel's sentence was an appropr iate one; he deserved the m a x i m u m sentence. Many ar gue t h a t he should have been convicted and sentenced for second degree murder , a crime carr y i n g a harsher m a x i m u m sentence t h a n manslaughter . B u t the j u r y decided not to do so, and Judge Rothwax chose the harsh est sentence for Steinberg. I f Steinberg serves h is sentence w i t h good behavior, as much as one quarter o f his m a x i m u m sentence can be taken ofT, and he
would stay i n j a i l for no longer t h a n 17 years. Yet no mat ter w h a t happens i n the future , the sentencing was definitely deserved, a n d Ste inberg was brought to justice.
Write to the Schre iber
Times We need yotir input on the articles we print, the editorials we present, and general school issues. Submit letters in the Pub Room and let yoxirself be heard.
M W M
s M M
i
CO
![EE 233. LIGHTWAVE SYSTEMS Chapter 8B. Multichannel ...ee233/sp06/lectures/Chap...Chapter 8B. Multichannel Systems[subcarrier mux] Instructor: Ivan P. Kaminow 4/11/06 ee233. Prof Kaminow](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/604b73f33d519610dd18c3e3/ee-233-lightwave-systems-chapter-8b-multichannel-ee233sp06lectureschap.jpg)
